Allowed

S J E S College of Education (M.Ed., ) v. the Bangalore University

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2014WP/6780/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted a writ petition seeking direction to the University to allow affiliation renewal. The court exercised judicial discretion to direct the Respondent to instruct the LIC to inspect and consider the application for the 2012-13 academic year.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to instruct the Local Inspection Committee to visit petitioner college and consider the application for renewal of affiliation for 2012-13.

S J E S College of Education (M.Ed., ) Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.6780 AND

¶7

6939-6954 OF 2013 (EDN-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S.J.E.S. College of Education (M.Ed.,), Medahalli, Old Madras Road, Bangalore – 560 049, Represented by its Principal, Dr. M. Manjunatha, Aged about 38 years.

¶10

Ambili Lakshman, Daughter of Lakshmanan .N, Aged about 30 years, Residing at Deepa Nivas, Thillennery (P.O.), Kannur District, Kerala.

¶11

Daisy M.O., Daughter of M.J. Ouseppachan, Aged about 26 years, Residing at V.K. Nivas,

¶12

¶13

Valad (P.O.), Thalapuga (Via) Nayanad, Kerala.

¶14

Deepika Kumari, Daughter of sri. Shabb Kishore Singh, Aged about 24 years, Residing at SMO. 3/8, Akash Vihar, Airforce Campus, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037.

¶15

Kaushal Kumar Patel, Son of Sakaldeo Patel, Aged about 32 years, Residing at Srinivas P.G., Goppal Reddy Building, No.727, Opp. Tulasi Theatre, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037.

¶16

Ravi Kumar .A, Son of A. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 44 years, No.1, Tirumal Shettyhalli, Kadugudi Post, Bangalore – 560 067.

¶17

Sangita Sharma, Daughter of Bipin Bihari Sharma, Aged about 37 years, No.155, 2^nd Street, Bankavenue, Bahushab Pallya,

¶18

¶19

Bangalore – 560 043.

¶20

[ cause title amended As per the court order Dated 27.8.2013]…PETITIONERS

¶21

(By Shri. M.M. Swamy, Advocate)

¶22

AND:

¶23

The Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi, Bangalore – 560 056, Represented by its Registrar.

¶24

The Registrar (Evaluation), The Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi, Bangalore – 560 056.

¶25

The Vice Chancellor, The Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi, Bangalore – 560 056.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(By Shri.N.K. Ramesh, Advocate )

¶28

¶29

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to grant affiliation to the petitioner college for M.Ed., Course for the Academic Year 2012-13 and etc;

¶30

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶31

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶34

The brief facts leading to these petitions are as

¶35

follows:-

¶36

The petitioner – College had obtained permission to start the Post-Graduate Course in M.Ed. The petitioner having obtained conditional recognition for starting the course from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the State Government had granted a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to start the course from the academic year 2008-09. Subsequently, the respondent – University had increased the intake of the students from 25 to 35 from the academic year 2010-11.

¶37

The Local Inspection Committee (LIC) assists the Academic Council of the University as well as the Syndicate by furnishing reports of particular institutions in enabling the said Council and the Syndicate to arrive at decisions whether

¶38

¶39

affiliation could be renewed or granted. The said Committee visited the college on 5.4.2011 and pointed out certain defects and recommended renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2011-12, subject to fulfillment of the said defects.

¶40

However, the second respondent is said to have constituted ‘Bangalore University Task Force Committee’, which in turn, was to inspect the college. The Task Force had visited the petitioner – college on 30.7.2012 and had submitted a negative report and based on the report of the Task Force, the University had issued a direction vide its Circular dated 28.2.2013, to comply with the deficiencies pointed out by the Task Force in order to be considered for renewal of affiliation for the year 2012-13.

¶41

The petitioner – College has rectified the defects and filed its Compliance Report on 14.3.2013 and requested for renewal of affiliation. It is in this background that the petitioners have approached this court by way of these writ petitions.

¶42

¶43

This court, by its interim order dated 8.2.2013 and 11.7.2013 had permitted the students of the petitioner-college to take up the examinations.

¶44

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw

¶45

attention to the report of the LIC and would submit that there is no negative finding except pointing out certain minor defects. Notwithstanding which, the LIC had recommended that the grant of renewal of affiliation could be made subject to compliance of the defects. It is contended that based on the report of the Task Force, that the affiliation for the year 201213 has been cancelled, which decision is inexplicable and unreasonable.

¶46

The learned Counsel Shri N.K.Ramesh appearing for

¶47

the University would contend that since the application of the petitioner for renewal of the affiliation for the year 2012-2013 has to be considered by the LIC, the University shall instruct the LIC to visit the petitioner – College and the LIC shall take

¶48

¶49

further steps in considering the application for renewal of affiliation for the year 2012-2013.

¶50

Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The

¶51

University shall instruct the LIC to visit the petitioner – College and the LIC shall consider the application for renewal of affiliation for the year 2012-2013 and the respondents, accordingly, pass appropriate orders, as regards renewal of affiliation.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

S J E S College of Education (M.Ed., ) v. the Bangalore University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S J E S College of Education (M.Ed., ) v. the Bangalore University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmugam P Vs Karnataka State Law University

Shri Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Venkatesh Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Hanumakka W/O Late Komaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sujathamma Vs the State of Karnataka